Repeated reflections on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra are a means to gain release.

only when they causes disenchantment. SN.15 teaches disenchantment of samsara.

The simple recollection of the past is not a tool to be released. Our present life demonstrate this to anyone. Rebirth is a phenomena used by Buddha to support the arise of disenchantment:

"enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.""

best

I wonder... denial that rebirth occurs, or denial that the Buddha taught rebirth, or denial that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth are relevant to the Path... is that disenchantment or is it something else?

Peter wrote:I wonder... denial that rebirth occurs, or denial that the Buddha taught rebirth, or denial that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth are relevant to the Path... is that disenchantment or is it something else?

My opinion...I reckon it is something else.Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples, a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.Kind regards

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

piotr wrote:Actually, there is whole saṃyutta (SN 15) which is dedicated to this topic and treats the issue from the practical point of view. Repeated reflections on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra are a means to gain release.

Howdy Piotr

I find the practical point of view from these suttas is how the Buddha described samsara, which means 'to circle':

"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Realize your post was your own opinion but hope you dont mind if i post back in relation to it

Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples

,

Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc

a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.

Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?

Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.

Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)

I think what we have today are just two different kinds of taking Dhamma, one wanting to take the traditional and commentarial "version" (dont like this word but couldnt think of another) and others choosing to take more of what modern monks have to say

I dont really think that one is better than another, i think this comes down to what suites the individual for practice

I myself started with the traditional teachings, three lives D.O. rebirth post mortem and 31 plains etc etc but it never really "worked" for me in any meaningful way. Only when I began to read Ajahn Buddhadasa, A. Chah, A. Sumedho did the Dhamma really come alive and begin to make a difference for me on a meaningful level. To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does

So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks

metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Santikaro wrote:Oh! Why would any Dhamma practitoner bother w/ such stuff? Even if a view is "right," entrenching in it is dukkha. Btw, entrenching could be a viable translation for abhinivesaya, which I tend to translate as "clinging" but which Tan Ajahn first explained to me as "burying ones mind in."

no idea.... sometmes the internet is like being born in the animal realm i guess...

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Another opinion of mine is that I didn't think the Buddha spoke so arcanely that the truth regarding rebirth could only be discerned by a select few disciples

,

Not everyone could understand Dhamma, meanings can get changed, emphasized, deemphasized etc

So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.

a truth that was apparently lost on everyone except for Venerable Buddhadasa. No disrespect intended.

Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?

Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.

Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.

Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)

And this is the only thing here that you have said that carries any weight.

Why is it that some Buddhadasa’s followers are so strongly intent on rejecting the more traditional point of view as if it were simply and completely wrong? Did Buddhadasa feel that his position is the only - truly true - way of understanding the teachings of the Buddha? Vens Nyanaponika or Mahasi Saydaw, for example, were simply wrong? It is one thing to state that Buddhadasa believes this or that for that or this reason, but it is another to keep on harping on these reasons, poo-pooing the traditional point of view as if Buddhadasa had the truly true truth and no one else does. A lot of that has gone on on this forum and on other forums as well. What is the point of it?

To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does

To you. I spent time with Ven Sumedho in the mid 70’s. Not a lot time, but enough. Deep abiding respect for him I have, but I’ll take U Pandita or Joseph Goldstein any day. But these are personal biases, not reasoned arguments for trying to emphasise anything.

So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks

So, what does that really mean?

I also dont think one is "less Theravada" than another another (or less Buddhist) which is something i hear chucked around from time to time

Sure. Buddhaghosa is a Brahmin who Hinduized Buddhism with his interpretations, according to one Buddhadasa follower, and those who follow Buddhaghosa's understanding are following a severly corrupted form of Buddhism.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Santikaro wrote:I agree that there is practical value in such reflections but don't read the possibility of vimutti (release) in them. I see these reflections as a way to get interested in release. For those who see life in such terms, rather than focusing always on the short-term, the next pay-off, e.g., getting a better next birth (common in popular Buddhism), use the belief to reflect on the ultimate futility of it all. If aiming for a better rebirth is not the wisest response to dukkha, then what is? If the inquiry continues and leads to deeper contemplation and realization -- e.g., all phenomena are not-self -- then the possibility of release appears.

Thank you for your thoughts. According to Upanisa-sutta (SN 12.23) knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present (i.e. that they are inconstant, stresfull & not-self) is a prerequisite for disenchantment, disenchantment is a prerequisite for dispassion, and dispassion is a prerequisite for release. So it seems to me that both contemplation on unimaginable beginnings of saṃsāra (i.e. vastness of suffering & stress) and contemplation on not-self are a means to gain release. It might be matter of personal preferences which one will emphasize.

Tilt - So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.

Not everyone does understand Dhamma, this we know. The rest i wrote as a maybe, hence why i said can

Craig - Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?

Tilt - Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.

Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?

Why is it that some Buddhadasa’s followers are so strongly intent on rejecting the more traditional point of view as if it were simply and completely wrong?

Perhaps because it is completely wrong for them in reguards to practice . Perhaps they know it is wrong? I dont know

Did Buddhadasa feel that his position is the only - truly true - way of understanding the teachings of the Buddha?

I dont know

It is one thing to state that Buddhadasa believes this or that for that or this reason, but it is another to keep on harping on these reasons, poo-pooing the traditional point of view as if Buddhadasa had the truly true truth and no one else does. A lot of that has gone on on this forum and on other forums as well.

I cant speak for others but for myself ive just engaged in debate and exchanged points of view, only on occasion have to offered criticism of the commentaries (on some teachings). Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic? Why do those who follow his line of teaching always get branded as "materialist" or "annihilationist" or get told that they are adverting away from rebirth (so in effect its being said that there is something wrong with them)?

Craig- To me the traditional teachings (some of them) dont have any practical value or make much sense in reguards to what i have learnt while Buddhadasa etc does

Tilt - To you. I spent time with Ven Sumedho in the mid 70’s. Not a lot time, but enough. Deep abiding respect for him I have, but I’ll take U Pandita or Joseph Goldstein any day. But these are personal biases, not reasoned arguments for trying to emphasise anything.

I agree (with the last sentence)

So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks

So, what does that really mean?

Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etc

George Bernard wrote:I find the practical point of view from these suttas is how the Buddha described samsara, which means 'to circle':

"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

This is really great discourse, but in my opinion this passage doesn't only describe saṃsāra. Rather, it describes also what makes saṃsāra keep going, i.e. ignorance and craving (see first sentences of this discourse), which is manifested by assumption that form, ..., & consciousness are the self or somehow related to it.

Welcome to Dhamma Wheel!Firstly, I want to say that i was genuine in asking santikaro about the Ajahn's approach to practice. Regardless of the differing interpretations on rebirth, I really think that the Ajahn's focus on practice is something we can all draw from, be inspired by, and find some common ground. And the quote you provided from A Handbook to Mankind demonstrated that. Thank you.

I also thank you for providing your second quote which seems to be the basis of Venerable's position regarding metaphorical rebirth. I am aware that the Buddha used language in creative and unique ways to impress a point to his interlocutors. Gombrich wrote about this in several of his essays in How Buddhism Began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings. Its an interesting and challenging read, and one that, while I don't agree with all of his points, found it a useful and stimulating read.However, one thing that seems to be missing in these discussions with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the Buddha's language of rebirth is the scriptural 'smoking gun'. And to be honest with you George, I actually think whether one person believes rebirth is literal (as I do) or whether someone doesn't - is irrelevant. Practice is the engine that generates wisdom.What I do care about, which Tilt has mentioned, is evangelist-like behaviour that has occured on this and other boards, declaring Venerable's teaching of metaphorical rebirth as the one and only way to interpret the Dhamma. Kind regards

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Thanks for your response. I won't address all your points as I concur with Tilt with the majority of his points. I also point to my just previous response to George with regards to the Ajahn's argument regarding the language of rebirth. Just to highlight my above point, considering the term 'rebirth' appears hundreds of thousands of times in the Tipitaka, I have not seen anywhere, a scriptural reference that supports, definitively and conclusively, the Ajahn's argument. As you know, this is something i asked of you on 'the great rebirth debate' some months ago before you went off on retreat.

Because I am an ignoramus, I rely on the assumption that the Buddha was a 'truth speaker', I rely on the Buddha's Dhamma, the vast commentarial literature, modern scholars such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, and last but not least, verification of the Dhamma through bhavana-maya-punna.

Dont most of us here . However in reguards to tradition, just because something is traditional doesnt mean its correct (of course doesnt mean its wrong either)

Craig, its not traditon for tradition's sake. I think its a reasonable assumption to make that the commentarians knew what they were talking about, knew - not only intellectually, but had either developed naana to a advanced state or were enlightened and so were able to verify the Dhamma through their own bhavana-maya-punna. I also believe that when they compiled their commentries, they did so for the welfare of all sentient beings. And the same goes for the 2,500 year tradition of scholarship within the Theravada. And I think, again a personal opinion, that due to the rigours of scholasticism, that the argument of metaphorical rebirth would have survived within the literature if it really was a special way of interpreting the Dhamma. Yet instead, and maybe its just here and on other forums, we have unsubstantiated slurs against Buddhagosa and others inserting Brahmanism, and slurs against later writers such as Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi who, according to some, rely too heavily on the Brahmanical influence o Buddhagosa. And my opinion is that its not an argument. Its actually an ad hominem.

And I just want to reiterate what I said above. Craig, I don’t care that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu taught rebirth, or whether you or anyone else believes in rebirth. As far as I am concerned, the thing that matters is practice. It is the engine that drives wisdom.What I do care about is evangelism and the attitude that Venerable’s interpretation is the only way to interpret the Dhamma.

And i hope Craig that you will continue to be inspired by what I believe was an epiphany on your recent retreat. Concentrate on what really matters Craig, practice!Metta

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Tilt - So one claims, but claiming it does not make it so. A bit more work, to grossly understate it, needs to be done to support this claim. As it stands it is meaningless.

Not everyone does understand Dhamma, this we know. The rest i wrote as a maybe, hence why i said can

The comment is still meaningless.

Craig - Ajahn Chah took a similar line of thought, although he did still discuss rebirth in the conventional way on occasion. There is no reason to assume that other Venerables down the centuries havent seen the same as Buddhadasa, perhaps they were just to few in number?

Tilt - Again, a claim which carries no weight. I could just as easily claim, with as much weight, that rebirth was the norm and was clearly understood to be such but monks who did not have strong insight de-emphasized things to where we have it now.

Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?

But the assumption still does not tell us anything meaningful. There is no argument in it, no evidence in, no anything it it except wishful thinking.

Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic?

I have not used the word heretic, but idiosyncratic is an appropriate description of Ven Buddhadasa; by the virtue of his own statements he has put himself outside of the Theravada mainstream. Buddhadasa, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push his notions and insist that his point of view is the point of view.

Why do those who follow his line of teaching always get branded as "materialist" or "annihilationist" or get told that they are adverting away from rebirth (so in effect its being said that there is something wrong with them)?

Because, more than anything, they do a very bad of presenting his point of view, it would seem.

So i think it comes down to just different strokes for different folks

So, what does that really mean?

Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etc

In other words, Buddhadasa is not the only way to understand the Buddha’s teaching. I have no problem with that.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Craig- Indeed you can, all i said was "there is no reason to assume" that every single monk and nun took it the way the commentaries taught it. Do you really think that in 2,500 years its only the last 100 years there have been the views of Buddhadasa etc?

Tilt - But the assumption still does not tell us anything meaningful. There is no argument in it, no evidence in, no anything it it except wishful thinking.

Well we can only go on what we think in this reguard since we cant go back and ask them all, do you honeslty think that in 2,500 years no monks and nuns took a different view of things?

Craig - Why do people put down Buddhadasa as a heretic or idiosyncratic?

Tilti - I have not used the word heretic, but idiosyncratic is an appropriate description of Ven Buddhadasa; by the virtue of his own statements he has put himself outside of the Theravada mainstream. Buddhadasa, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push his notions and insist that his point of view is the point of view.

Did i say you used the word "Heretic"? You can see it as idiosyncratic if you wish but hes not alone in this thinking.

Traditionalists, would for the most part, not get as bad response on internet forums if it were not for the followers who argumentatively push buddhaghosa's notions and insist that their point of view is the point of view (and yes this has happned)

I see the argumentative streak coming through because of the black and white view those who follow tradition have. The general notion of "this is older so it must be true" and the dogmatic view of what makes right view (this is also put forward by some monks)

Craig - Different understandings, different way of looking at things, different teaching styles etc

Tilt - In other words, Buddhadasa is not the only way to understand the Buddha’s teaching. I have no problem with that.

Of course i cant make the claim that he is, how do I know? All i know is what works and makes sense in accord with my understanding

Peter wrote:I wonder... denial that rebirth occurs, or denial that the Buddha taught rebirth, or denial that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth are relevant to the Path... is that disenchantment or is it something else?

just the disenchantment of what SN 15 shows: "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

by the way, in other translations the word "transmigration" is not used.

if somebody here is expert in Pali language, maybe he can explain the exact meaning of the pali word involved. Anyway, I think one must be aware of the implicit dangers in using the word "transmigration" due the inoculated term "migration". Because there are many types of multiple birth, not only transmigration. We have metempsychosis, transmigration, reincarnation, rebirth, recorporation, metemsomatosis or palingenesy. Among many others.

# (n.) That form of evolution in which the truly ancestral characters conserved by heredity are reproduced in development; original simple descent; -- distinguished from kenogenesis. Sometimes, in zoology, the abrupt metamorphosis of insects, crustaceans, etc.# (n.) A new birth; a re-creation; a regeneration; a continued existence in different manner or form.

an important discussion can be the right use of the words "transmigration" or "rebirth" beyond the denial of a causal thread in the arise of beings. I think the causal thread is out of doubt inside the Buddhist doctrine. But this confussion of the Buddhist rebirth with a transmigration it can start in the bad choosing of translated words. Or perhaps unavoidable?

It can be an interesting topic to clarify with the people expert in Pali language (not me).

Anyway, I'm referring to the Buddhist rebirth of those passages involving other lifes, and used like support to explain other things like sila, craving, etc... Regarding those teaching of Budda which are directly referred to the Rebirth and its cease, all them are teachings for the present moment, here and now.

I'd like you all to know that I don't mind at all if you want to rant on and on about this same tiresome thought every day for the rest of your lives because you can do what you like and I've simply come to ignore it almost entirely just like I ignore town drunks. I just wonder, every time I run into the same guys continually raving about this why you aren't also already bored out of your mind about it? I mean, yawn, you don't believe in rebirth. Fine, it's by no means 'newsworthy'. It must be pretty common knowledge around here to everyone by now wouldn't you think? Why not just put it in your signature "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LITERAL REBIRTH" and be done with it. Frankly the whole subject has become so tediously repetitive and pointlessly boring that I just leave this site and go elsewhere for something fresh to read. The whole largely useless argument has been reborn here so many times already that I figure its hopelessly mired in endless being and becoming hereabouts and never going to get free of itself. Why not start a whole BBoard devoted to rebirth denial and have a real party with all of your one lifetime pals and let everyone else have some peace as well?

George Bernard wrote:I originally took great offence to this term "puttujana". But then, one day, I admitted my mind was "puttajanna". When this occurred, the pride in my mind fell away, with all of the other egositic baggage it was carrying. Suddenly my mind could concentrate & let go.

This is what inspired me to practice. It was like a stepping stone in truth. To admit my mind was a puttujana

I think this is a very important realization. It's something I've been thinking about for years - people's ego resistance to admitting they are puthujjana - and how much of a block to understanding the teachings this can be.